Patch blog/Steve Latz crossing the line? archived

kmt said:

@nan, I wrote the piece in question and although you can fairly call me a pompous windbag if you want, I hope you're not trying to connect me to the comments about realtors promising demographics changes. I don't want to see demographics changes in Maplewood, but I do want to see changes in the way that politics are conducted in this town.

Like probably everybody else in this place, I want to move beyond this contentious election and talk about something else. But I don't feel comfortable doing that with what seems to me to be a big open wound festering until the next election.

It seems to me that if we can't resolve this issue about the way we debate each other, we will have an incredibly hard time getting anything done for our kids.

kmt,

I'm connecting you to the poster who made comments about moving here with the expectation of the demographics changing. She's now trying to move because the demographics have not changed as promised and she feels that negatively affects her child's education. In other words, this poster a tireless endorser of the winning BOE slate expresses a view that supports Lisa Davis' assertion that , "". . . the other slate believes that any gains for Black students will come at the expense of high achieving White students."

It's right there, and has been on daily view at MOL.com for quite some time. Yet, you choose, after the election has already been won, to continue the negative campaign. You continue to show support for that Rusty guy and cite unsupported claims about the parentage of the underachieving children in our district. And don't get me started on how you cast Fredrick Douglas into a "Weekend with Bernnie" leveling supporter.

BTW, since you claim to be channeling, what does Fredrick say about spending oodles of powerful money to launch a BOE campaign on steroids and endorsing candidates on official looking documents and starting ugly threads about the other campaign supposedly using race as an issue as a way of using race as an issue in your favor? Rolled over in his grave, perhaps?

Steve Latz is not the one who owes our community an apology.

KTrama said:

nan said:

KTrama said:

CrazyModerate said:

If there were evidence that deleveling improved failing students while not impairing the growth advanced students, I would whole-heartedly support it.

Hank is correct in stating that there ideologues on the other end of this discussion. These ideologues are backed by studies such as the one I have posted below;

http://www.colorado.edu/education/faculty/kevinwelner/Docs/Burris,Wiley,Welner_Accountability_Rigor_and_Detracking.pdf

There are several other studies I can link you to.

So, ideologues "on the other end of this discussion" are defined as people who publish studies you don't agree with?

This study provides evidence that detracking the system improved failing students grades while not impairing the growth of advanced students. That does not mean it is guaranteed to work in MSO, but that there are successful models out there. That said, there are studies that attempt to prove the opposite. It is our responsibility to examine the evidence objectively, and form our own educated opinions.

I'd like to see the focus of the discussion shift from regrettable campaign tactics to curriculum content.

So these studies that provide evidence in favor of detracking must be wrong and not objective and unnamed studies that attempt to prove the opposite are our responsibility to examine? Objectively?

You are still losing me.

Did anybody see the Khan Academy TED Talk? He gave a detailed and credible pitch for some valuable school reforms, some of which look a lot like deleveling (but without all of the hate/guilt we've got in M/SO).

I'm not against deleveling per se. I'm hopeful that in the next year, our schools will find a good way to make it work (as long as we don't all destroy each other first).

Thanks KTRama, this looks like the Rockville Center Study. This study does present the results of research that confirmed ability grouping "studies have found higher student achievement in high-track classes than in low-track classes (Epple,Newlon, & Romano, 2002; Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Oakes, Gamoran, & Page, 1992; Welner, 2001a)". This is to be expected. It also refers to several detracking results "the learning of higher achievers decreases in detracked, heterogeneous
classes (Brewer, Rees, & Argys, 1995; Epstein & MacIver, 1992; Kulik,1992), while other studies report no significant differences (Burris,Heubert, & Levin, 2006; Figlio & Page, 2002; Mosteller, Light, & Sachs,1996; Slavin, 1990).

The Rockville Center experiment was done with a much different demographic: 20% black/hispanic students, with only half on reduced lunch. What this study concludes is that offering students greater challenges yields better results, and Rockville Center, with it's much smaller population of struggling minority students, achieved this by partial deleveling AT A GRADUAL PACE, and only included low achieving students in the study who were in the school at least 4 consecutive years.

The problem with applying this approach to MPD/SO is the greater number of stuggling minority students, and the tranisent nature of a subset of these students. A heterogneous group class in MPD/SO is skewed with a much greater number of the low achievers whose needs overwhelm an instructor trying to teach at an advanced level in a class for which less than 50% of students can follow at that pace. This is a key difference. Perhaps deleveling would work if the number of low SES struggling students was as small a percentage as in Rockville Center.

WHile I agree, and I bet everyone agrees, that offering greater challenges to every student is a NO BRAINER, "equity" requires we extend this principle to EVERY STUDENT, including those who are high functioning. Offering every student greater challenges is a principle that is key to Ability Grouping, with MPD/SO demographics Ability Grouping is more workable.

nan said:

I'm connecting you to the poster who made comments about moving here with the expectation of the demographics changing.

Huh? Why? I have nothing to do with that person. What makes you think that I want "the demographics" to change (and what demographics are we talking about exactly)?

nan said:

It's right there, and has been on daily view at MOL.com for quite some time.

? All I see at MOL.com is something about winning game points. Are you using Firefox or Chrome?

nan said:

Yet, you choose, after the election has already been won, to continue the negative campaign.

I don't think of it as a negative campaign, I think of it as trying to resolve problems with our collective communication. I think that everybody involved has good intentions and is serious about improving public education. If we could avoid assuming the worst about each other, we'd be able to get a lot more done.

nan said:

You continue to show support for that Rusty guy and cite unsupported claims about the parentage of the underachieving children in our district.

I don't think that I've made an argument that what he said is correct. I've said that it's falsifiable, that it's not about race, that it's worth considering, etc.

I will admit that I don't have a full explanation for the performance of our underachieving students. Do you have such an explanation?

nan said:

And don't get me started on how you cast Fredrick Douglas into a "Weekend with Bernnie" leveling supporter.

That's hilarious imagery, nan. I'm not sure how well the poor guy would look in those bright colors, but his lush hair would at least make it easier to control his head movement.

nan said:

BTW, since you claim to be channeling, what does Fredrick say about [...]

Seriously, he made statements consistent with the motivations I've heard from people for having levels. Could you consider that levels aren't meant to be a racial barrier? If you think that they did function that way, wouldn't you be worried that deleveled classes will be "differentially segregated?"

nan said:

KTrama said:

nan said:

KTrama said:

CrazyModerate said:

If there were evidence that deleveling improved failing students while not impairing the growth advanced students, I would whole-heartedly support it.

Hank is correct in stating that there ideologues on the other end of this discussion. These ideologues are backed by studies such as the one I have posted below;

http://www.colorado.edu/education/faculty/kevinwelner/Docs/Burris,Wiley,Welner_Accountability_Rigor_and_Detracking.pdf

There are several other studies I can link you to.

So, ideologues "on the other end of this discussion" are defined as people who publish studies you don't agree with?

This study provides evidence that detracking the system improved failing students grades while not impairing the growth of advanced students. That does not mean it is guaranteed to work in MSO, but that there are successful models out there. That said, there are studies that attempt to prove the opposite. It is our responsibility to examine the evidence objectively, and form our own educated opinions.

I'd like to see the focus of the discussion shift from regrettable campaign tactics to curriculum content.

So these studies that provide evidence in favor of detracking must be wrong and not objective and unnamed studies that attempt to prove the opposite are our responsibility to examine? Objectively?

You are still losing me.

I think we may be misunderstanding each other.

As a full-time student who is beginning a graduate program to obtain a Masters in teaching I am constantly be bombarded with new information. As a result, I will occassionaly shift position when presented with new data on a topic.

In the past, I may have written a short post on this board outlying my opinion on this subject, but won't waste the time searching through archives.

Point is, I don't recall presenting or defending my position on this topic. My opinion lies in the middle of this divergence, and if somebody were to ask me for my views I would gladly provide them.

kmt said:

I think that everybody involved has good intentions and is serious about improving public education. If we could avoid assuming the worst about each other, we'd be able to get a lot more done.

1+

dg64 said:

kmt said:

I think that everybody involved has good intentions and is serious about improving public education. If we could avoid assuming the worst about each other, we'd be able to get a lot more done.

1+

Yeah, fine sounding words. You do realize that the same person said this in an editorial:

". . .Rusty Reeves placed the blame for the underachievement of many black kids on single-parent homes and "culture" and despite the fact that Mr. Latz came with gasoline to the fire, Mr. Reeves's comments did inflame emotions at the time he said them. Still, I grew up in a single-parent home, and in my youth I did see and frankly I did for a time participate in a counterproductive, anti-intellectual culture and to my mind it's undeniable that these things can predispose kids to underachievement in one way or another. I understand and appreciate what Mr. Reeves is saying. . . ."


When it comes to assuming the worst about others, kmt takes the cake.

nan said:

what does Fredrick say about spending oodles of powerful money to launch a BOE campaign on steroids

Where is the laugh button on this thing? You've got to be kidding. "Oodles of powerful money"...as opposed to "Oodles on powerless money"? Earth to Nan, No SuperPAC monies were used in the recent election. Just local community member donations.

nan said:

and endorsing candidates on official looking documents

You mean Michael Goldberg's personal blog he sends to his supporters? When will the madness end?!
You my dear, are a riot!

nan said:

When it comes to assuming the worst about others, kmt takes the cake.

nan, when I said that, I didn't assume that this was the problem in M/SO but that it's valid to consider it. That sort of thing is a common problem everywhere in every state and at all levels of the socioeconomic ladder.

But please, if you think that it's so wrong, perhaps you'd be willing to explain the cause(s) of this achievement gap in more detail.

If you'll do that, I'll give you your cake back.

kmt said:

But please, if you think that it's so wrong, perhaps you'd be willing to explain the cause(s) of this achievement gap in more detail.

Money. Where's my cake?

Too quick.

Rusty Reeves responds:

http://maplewood.patch.com/articles/op-ed-no-wonder-people-don-t-talk-about-race

Well said, Dr. Reeves.

It's astounding that Mr. Latz made no attempt to reach out to Dr. Reeves for some clarification before throwing him under the bus, all in the name of Karl Rove style politics.

Mr. Latz, I do hope you find a new hobby.

Lee Navlen

The cake is a lie.

It is astonishing that some of you consider these obnoxious remarks by Rusty Reeves as clarification. The guy continues to blame the achievement gap on single parent families without any data showing that is an issue in our district. Funny how datacentric so many of you are until it's your lack of data. When I questioned kmt on this same point, he quickly refuted the claim as a local problem. He said he was not referring to out district, but some national trend. But don't go looking for a disclaimer in either his or Mr. Reeves' editorials because you won't find one.

So evidently the achievement gap is caused by single black families all over the world, but not in South Orange Maplewood when the topic is South Orange Maplewood student underachievement. If it's not a local problem why bring it up as one and then say it's not a local problem when asked. Interesting way to make an argument.

He also says that Steve Latz wrote the Lisa Davis email, an incorrect fact which he should correct but I'm not holding my breath.

kmt said:

nan said:

When it comes to assuming the worst about others, kmt takes the cake.

nan, when I said that, I didn't assume that this was the problem in M/SO but that it's valid to consider it. That sort of thing is a common problem everywhere in every state and at all levels of the socioeconomic ladder.

But please, if you think that it's so wrong, perhaps you'd be willing to explain the cause(s) of this achievement gap in more detail.

If you'll do that, I'll give you your cake back.

As I stated in my last post about your mentor, Rusty Reeves, if it's not a local problem why bring it up as one? I did not see any disclaimer in your or Rusty Reeves remarks.

Nan says, "He also says that Steve Latz wrote the Lisa Davis email, an incorrect fact which he should correct but I'm not holding my breach."

Steve Latz wrote on Patch, "Her e-mail was drafted with my full knowledge, assistance and encouragement" and "I take sole responsibility for the e-mail."

Mr. Latz accepted responsibility for the e-mail Nan.

"On the afternoon of April 12, Lisa Davis, campaign co-chair for the Payne-Parrish and Swanson campaign, sent an email to 19 friends, urging them to vote in the upcoming April 17 BOE elections. Her email was drafted with my full knowledge, assistance and encouragement."

http://maplewood.patch.com/articles/talking-about-race-in-more-than-whispered-tones

@CapnMarko, portal?!

@nan, maybe you misunderstood me? I believe that I said that the single-parent/culture problems are problems everywhere, and that they may or may not be the predominate problem here. All I said was that it's worth considering, unless you've got some kind of definitive information on what exactly causes the achievement gap? I'm curious to know what causes you think that we should look at to explain this gap. You're up in arms about the suggestion that culture and single-parent families may contribute to it, so surely you're privy to some information that we all lack. Please enlighten us!

Oh, and re: Steve Latz writing the Lisa Davis email, Mr. Latz "took responsibility" for that message and even said that he gave Lisa Davis the point about Rusty Reeves to put into the email. He might not have made decisions about comma-placement, but come on nan you're picking nits.

nan said:

As I stated in my last post about your mentor, Rusty Reeves, if it's not a local problem why bring it up as one? I did not see any disclaimer in your or Rusty Reeves remarks.

It's one potential explanation that the BOE should investigate in addressing the achievement gap (surely you wouldn't contest the idea that the BOE should consider the causes of this achievement gap?).

Do you have anything at all nan? Do you have any suggestions for causes that people should look into? What do you have to offer to the people who want to help kids on the wrong side of the achievement gap? Just put the anger aside for a second.

kmt - The single parent thing is the major point made by you and Rusty Reeves. The major point in an editorial that is meant for local readers, not all over the world. Why would you make a major point like that unless you had evidence to back it up?

nan said:

As I stated in my last post about your mentor, Rusty Reeves, if it's not a local problem why bring it up as one? I did not see any disclaimer in your or Rusty Reeves remarks.

Also, you might want to reread what Darth Sidious, my wise master, had to say more closely:

Rusty_Reeves said:

Despite my curt certainty at the BOE meeting, I do not have the Answer to the achievement gap. I am convinced, however, that culture, including but not limited to single-parent families is responsible. Studies suggest that single-parent families are a significant contributor to the achievement gap. This is a robust finding that has been around for years. My experience in prison as well as my understanding of the psychiatric literature similarly teaches me that single-parent families (and the corollary of absent fathers) is a risk factor for crime. The prevalence of single-parent families in this country has risen over the past several decades, and these families are not confined to one race. In 2009, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 17% of Asian children, 29% of white children, 53% of Hispanic children, and 73% of black children were born outside of marriage in the United States. A 2002 report by the CDC revealed that most unmarried parents are not living together. Although many children of single parents do just fine, when such a large percentage of children have this risk factor, many will suffer and the effects will be pervasive. In my practice, I commonly encounter single mothers whose children have academic as well as legal difficulties. The mother works and has limited time and money for her children. An absent father may result in no positive male role model for the child, which may be particularly harmful to boys.

A host of other things reportedly also contribute to the achievement gap, including in no particular order, lousy urban schools, too much TV, peer pressure, poor nutrition, parental education and income, “cultural capital” and stereotype threat to name a few in no particular order – the “broad culture” I mentioned in my BOE appearance. I have difficulty believing that the Superintendent and the BOE do not recognize these factors are important. Yet it’s easier in this age to claim racism as a source of problems. Thus my comment that the Superintendent’s and BOE’s focus on racism is “displacement.” To be fair, studies do suggest that academic tracking contributes to the achievement gap between whites and blacks. Our Superintendent (and the BOE by its acquiescence) has adopted this argument when he notes that our high school graduates who were in Level 3 graduated college at a lower rate than those in level 4. The problem is he took this correlation as causation. He’s smart enough to think of alternative hypotheses.

nan said:

kmt - The single parent thing is the major point made by you and Rusty Reeves. The major point in an editorial that is meant for local readers, not all over the world. Why would you make a major point like that unless you had evidence to back it up?

First of all, the single parent thing is a point that Rusty Reeves raised and I support only in as much as it is a potential explanation (and/or partial explanation) for the achievement gap. Why bring it up? Mr. Reeves can speak for himself, but I would bring it up because, lacking an adequate explanation, it's a worthwhile explanation to explore. That's what people do when they want to solve a problem -- they investigate possible causes of the problem and thereby solutions.

But I think that you've made your point that this avenue of investigation is wrong and inadequate. Care to venture a guess as to the cause(s) of this achievement gap?

If it's wrong than you and Reeves need to retract it. Plain and simple. To not do so, is a huge insult to the African American families in our community.

Chalmers1 said:

Nan says, "He also says that Steve Latz wrote the Lisa Davis email, an incorrect fact which he should correct but I'm not holding my breach."

Steve Latz wrote on Patch, "Her e-mail was drafted with my full knowledge, assistance and encouragement" and "I take sole responsibility for the e-mail."

Knowledge, assistance and encouragement is not the same as authorship (although convenient when attacking someone). Steve Latz does seem to be in agreement with the content of the email, and based on what I've read here on MOL and in Rusty Reeves statements, I think there is support for that point of view.

Why?

"Knowledge, assistance and encouragement is not the same as authorship (although convenient when attacking someone)."

Nan, come on already.

Your candidates lost because they weren't strong enough to win this year. Steve Latz and Lisa Davis pulled out the race card with that pathetic e-mail that they co-authored and it backfired. The CCR completely discredited itself.

These are facts.

nan said:

If it's wrong than you and Reeves need to retract it. Plain and simple. To not do so, is a huge insult to the African American families in our community.

Please. Listen. Closely.

It may or may not be wrong. It is statistically correlated with underachievement and, lacking any other explanations, is worthy of investigation.

It. Is. Not. A. Statement. About. African-Americans.

My Dear Strawberry,

The candidates I supported ran a fine, clean, respectful, budget-minded campaign that was not afraid to ask tough questions. And they lost and have graciously ridden off into the sunset. Supporters of your candidates, however, who ran an ugly and questionably ethical campaign, for some reason I have no idea why continue the nastiness with more inflamatory editorials and MOL threads. Ironically, these statements only provide more support for the Lisa Davis email. I bet some people are rethinking their votes and views. Perhaps you will come around on this too?

BTW, CCR did not pull out the "race card." Let me remind you that CCR stands for Community Coalition on Race. Talking about race is what they do. Would you have them swap recipes and suggestions about hairdos instead? I suppose that was what kmt meant when he said politics needed to change.